The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, also referred to as the Brady Bill, was approved as a change to the Gun Control Act of 1968. It enforces a holding back period of at the most five days for the procurement of a handgun through legal trade, and the potential procurers are subjected to a background check investigation in the course of that waiting period. This waiting phase and background check investigation stipulated by the provisions of the Act are not requisite in States which already possess authorization systems aligned with standards laid down by the Act. 18 U.S.C. section 922(s)(1)(C) and (D). (LLL, 1)
Within a span of five years from the date of effectiveness of the Bill, such investigations were to be carried out straight away by means of a national criminal background check investigation system by the Department of Justice. However, meanwhile the background check investigations were the responsibility of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of the prospective procurer’s residential region. As per the wording of The Act CLEOs are obliged to “make a reasonable effort to ascertain… whether receipt or possession [of a handgun by the prospective buyer] would be in violation of the law “(Docal, 1).
The CLEO has to carry out the investigation based on an avowed declaration issued by the procurer and presented to the CLEO through a federally certified gun dealer. If the CLEO provides his consent to the transfer of item(s), the buyer’s declaration has to be destroyed within a period of twenty working days subsequent to the declaration being made. However, if the CLEO objects to the transfer item(s), he/she has to provide the rationale underlying the deliberation within a period of twenty working days if it is appealed by the rejected procurer.
The Brady Act controls the dealings of handguns and therefore directly impacts commerce. It is a modification to a wide-ranging federal arrangement for the control of firearms trade that indisputably has an effect on interstate business. The legislative records pertaining to the Brady Act also substantiates reports that gun hostility impacts trade and commerce. However, the Act is only relevant to dealings between a federally authorized dealer by the Treasury Department and a personal individual. Sales related to private entities do not come under the jurisdiction of the Act for the reason that the federal authorities have no influence or to confine intrastate trades and commerce.
The stipulations in the Act that authorized local law enforcement officers to perform background check investigations was dropped by the Supreme Court through a ruling in 1997 as, the court judged that it dishonored the Federalism prerequisites of the national Constitution. An additional difficulty was that in various regions, no effort was made to carry out the investigation, and the consequences of the Act were a just a five day formal holding back period.
In conclusion, it may be said that the Act has failed to prove itself to be particularly influential. It would be wrong to say that it has been a complete failure. However, it has not lived up to its expectations. The Brady Act is erroneous to an extent as it contends with crime control in an off beam manner. If the intention behind formulating the Brady Act was just to represent yet another stride towards a definitive prohibition of use firearms, then it can be considered to have some measure of achievement. Nobody reasonably expects the Congress, to prohibit all private forms of firearm ownership in a single step. Congress cannot ratify any such far-reaching decrees as it would definitely be a violation of the Second Amendment. In a nutshell, the Brady Act refers to just another simple step towards and eventual ultimate disarmament ideal.
Work Cited
Docal, Roland. “The Second, Fifth, And Ninth Amendments—The Precarious Protectors Of The American Gun Collector”. Constitutional Law in the United States of America. 1996. Web.
LLL. “Brady Act”. Lectric Law Library. 2007.